Matter of Hiciano v Allstate Settlement Corp. 2010 NY Slip Op 33207(U)
October 20, 2010 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 109641-10
Judge: Judith J. Gische
Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service.
Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
I
HON.
JUDITH
J. GISCHE
PRESENT: PART
INDEX NO. Index Number : 109641 /2010
HICIANO, FERNANDO VS .
ALLSTATE SETTLEMENT CORP.
SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 OTHER RELIEFS
MOTION DATE
MOTION SEQ. NO.
00
!
MOTION CAL. NO.
this motion to/for
1
Notlce of Motion/ Order to Show Cause - Affidavit8 - Exhlblts
...
Answering Affldavlts - ExhibitsReplying Affidavits
Cross-Motion:
0
Yes
%
No
Upon the forsgolng papers, it Is ordered that thla motlon
PAPER$ NIJMBERED
I l l s Judgment hm not bean s n m d by ths County Clerk and natlce
of
entty c l m t be wwed b o d h e m . ToM nsntry,
cwmsl
or authorized represri- mumt tappar In penon at the Judgment Clerk‘s De& (Roam 1418).Check one:
FINAL
DISPOSITION
c]
NON-FINAL
DISPOSITION
Check
ifappropriate:
0
DO NOT POST
0
REFERENCE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: IAS PART 10
In the Matter of the Petition of DECISION/ ORDER
FERNANDO HICIANO a/k/a Index No.: 109641-10
FERNANDO HlSlANO Seq. No.: 001
for judicial approval
of
absolute assignmentagreement with PRESENT:
SE-TTLEMENT FUNDING OF NEW YORK, LLC, pursuant to Article 5, Title 17 of the
New York General Obligations Law,
X _____I--_____________l_l_r__ll__r_l_____--”---
Hon. Judith J.
Gische
J.S.C.
Petitioner,
-against-
ALLSTATE SETTLEMENT CORPORATION and ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NY,
Recitation, as required by CPLR § 2219 [a] of the papers considered in the review of this (these) motion(s):
Papem Numbered
Notice of Petition, Petition w/FH affid, exhs
. . .
, 1Upon the foregoing papers, the decision and order of the court is as follows:
GISCHE J.:
Fernando Hiciano a/k/a Fernando Hisiano (“Hiciano”) is a resident of the State of Pennsylvania and the beneficiary of a structured settlement agreement reached in the
State of New York in 1997 (Index No. 21899/87). This petition by Settlement Funding
of
New York, LLC (“SFNY) is for an order approving the transfer of Hiciano’s structured settlement payment rights to SFNY. If approved by this court, SFNY then has to also obtain the approval of the Pennsylvania courts.-Page I of
5-
[* 2]SFNY has filed proof of service on Hiciano and Allstate. Hiciano has provided
his sworn affidavit in support of the petition. However, Allstate takes no position on the
relief sought and, therefore, the petition is before the court without opposition. The
court’s decision and order is as follows:
Hiciano
seeks
to transfer to SFNY his right to receive 144 monthly paymentseach in the amount of $1,533.00 commencing September 12,2002 though August 12,
2034 (“assigned payments”) pursuant to an agreement he entered into with SFNY
dated June 5, 201 0 (“transfer agreement”). The assigned payments are in the
aggregate amount of $220,752. The present discounted value is $1 19,637.49, based upon a discount rate of 3.40%. According to SFNY, the cost of buying a comparable
annuity for the aggregate amount of payments to be transferred is
$183,966.52
and$170,291.17, based upon quotes SFNY obtained from two other annuity issuers.
The gross advance by SFNY, in return for the assigned payments, is $20,71 I
.02.
After deducting commissions, legal fees ($2,000), a processing fee ($200) and other
charges, Hiciano will receive in hand the sum of $1 8 3 1 1.02.
According to his affidavit, Hiciano needs this money to buy a shipping truck and
invest in inventory and supplies for his importkxport business in the Dominican Republic. He earns $1,500 a month from that business. Hiciano states, without
elaborating, that assignment of his anticipated payments and getting a lump sum
payment from SFNY is preferable to taking out a loan, because he will not have to pay
the money back with interest, as he would with more traditional financing.
In his affidavit, Hiciano states he is married and has three small children, all of
I
year old sister.I
DiscussionTitle 17 of the General Obligation Law (IIGOL”), knows as the “Structured
Settlement Protection Act” (“SSPA”) requires judicial approval of any sale of future
structured settlement payments to a third party (Matter of
Settleme
nt CapitalCorporation v. Drew, 2007 Slip Op 30703 (U) [Sup Ct Queens, 20071 mar.). This is to
protect vulnerable payees from aggressive marketing tactics.
Although the applicant/payee does not have to show economic hardship in order
to have the transfer approved, the SSPA does require that the payee be provided with
adequate disclosure about the proposed transfer, including a comparison
of
theproposed transfer to the court of purchasing a comparable annuity (GOL
5
5-1703). Examining the documents provided, petitioner has apparently complied with this firststep.
The second step requires that the court to employ a “totality of the circumstances
test,” very similar to that used in family law matters (see In re 321 Henderson Receivables, L.P.,
13
Misc3d 526 [Sup Ct Erie 20061 and cases cited therein). Thecourt has to see whether the transfer is in the best interest of the payee, taking into
account the welfare and support of his or her dependents (In te 321 Hend erson
Receivables, L.P., supra). This is not only for the protection of the payee, who may be
dependent on the structured payments for their long-term financial security, but also for
the protection of his or her dependents who are dependent on the payee for their
support.
-Page 3 of
5-
[* 4]The court must also take into account whether the payee has obtained or waived
independent professional advice (GOL
5
5-1701).Hiciano has not shown why it makes sense for him to assign almost $220,000 in
structured payments to SFNY in exchange for the lump sum of $1831 1.02
-
less than 10% of what he is otherwise entitled to receive. Stated another way, if this petition isgranted he will collect a lump sum that is equal to one year’s worth of monthly
payments, but surrender 1 I years’ worth of income for that benefit.
There is no information about the financial health of his business in the
Dominican Republic
or
what attempts he made to secure traditional financing. His explanation, that the money he receives from SFNY will be interest free, makes nosense given the “price,” in a different sense, he will have to pay for receiving that lump
sum payment. There is no showing that investing this money into his business will yield
better income than what he is giving up.
Hiciano apparently has five (5) dependents, yet inexplicably, he has signed his name to another document stating he only has one, his teenaged sister. His income
from the business is only $1,500 and his monthly payments from the settlement will be
$3,000. Hiciano provides no budget to show that he can still meet his support
obligations when his monthly payments are reduced in 2022. His youngest child is only
five (5) years old. This is Hiciano’s second application for a transfer of payments. The prior application, in 1997, for $217,000, was so he could buy a house.
Although he is being charged for legal fees, Hiciano did not have a lawyer,
although he did meet with a certified public accountant.
cash
at such a steep discount(In
re321
Henderson
Receivables, L.P,, supra; In re 321 Henderson.L
LC, 19 Misc3d 504 [Sup Ct Queens Co.20081).
Therefore, the petition is denied.Conclusfon
In accordance with the foregoing, It is hereby,
ORDERED DECLARED AND ADJUDGED that
t h e
petition is denied and thisproceeding is dismissed
This constitutes the decision, order and Judgment of the Court.
Dated: New York, New York October 20,201 0
So Ordered:
-Page 5 of